User talk:Snipre

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Hi Snipre, I've seen you worked a lot on the book properties: have you seen this [force]? In the talk page we are discussing few issues about properties. Moreover, I've created a mapping between different infoboxes: not only Wikipedia ones, but also Commons and Wikisource ones. I've seen you are working a lot on this table, and I synchronized my mapping with that table. I think we have just few properties left, but I'd like very much all the book people to discuss in the very same page (like, here) :-) --Aubrey (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WD team will tackle Sister projects, one by one. They will start in few months, after the end of the present phase. they will start with simpler ones, eg. Wikivoyage.

They don't knoow which "structure" the Commons file will have in Wikidata. We discussed with them the option 1 (above), but they say it's unlikely to have a WD for every manifestation. We then discussed more indetalis and they understood better the concept involved, and say that it's maybe doable. But it also depends by the community.

They say a lot of metadata will be stored in Commons and Wikisource, not everything will be in Wikidata.

This means that they will provide tools and stuff, but many data will remain in Sister projects. This is somehow unexpected, but not bad per se. We need to stay tuned on this.

It is not yet certain if Sources were to be stored in Wikidata or not.

The only Wikidata ID will be for pages. There will be for subpages/sections. Aubrey (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sources, they just said they don't know what they'll do. They are asking for the community to come up with ideas, issues and solutions. So I think we (Wikidata books task force) are doing good, tackling issues before them, and foreseeing problems and solutions. I personally think that Sources will be a huge issue: at the beginning they were saying that they didn't wanto to have all book editions metadata in WD, but then I explained to them that we were talking just of the books present in Commons and used by Wikisource, so they changed their mind; it's few thousands book, not the whole bibliography of the world, so it's feasible.

I think that sources are just the same kind of issue, but in bigger: you need to have much more granular metadata (articles, preprints, books, monographies, working papers, thesis, whatsoever), and I think the possibile entities counts in millions. Template:Cite_web, for example, is used 1367805 times... I think that the gain to have a proper system to store these metadata would be enormous, and whole academic community would give us eternal gratitude. But's something big and difficult, and I don't know if feasible... --Aubrey (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it's stupid to import all metadata from books in Commons and Wikisource and to think that we will not do the same for all other books. For me there is only 2 options: we create for each manifestation an item or we create another database only for reference data storage and each time someone wants to source one statement we use a tool which import the whole set of data of the source into the source section (a link or an ID is not acceptable because we can't separate data and their references between different databases).

We facing 2 things: provide reliable data and this is only possible by sourcing with a complete data set for the reference, and reuse of reference data and this is possible only with a database. If Wikidata can't handle the storage of data for all books, articles, media,... we need to source the statements, we have to think about another database and tools to link wikidata and the reference database.

What I still miss are the technical or organisational reasons why we can't handle references with all bibliographic data in Wikidata. And if it is really an issue for wikidata we can stop here the development of wikidata because data without references including all bibliographic data are useless. So if you have any informations about why the development team has some reluctances to integrate all bibliographic data for references it could help us to choose a solution or simply decide that wikidata is not a solution for reliable data. Snipre (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I agree with you, I just say it's a very complex issue (from what I understand: but I'm a librarian, so maybe I overcomplicate things), especially as we intend books in different ways, eg as

works (Wikipedia pages)

manifestations

scanned books (Commons and Wikisources)

sources

for Wikidata

for Wikipedia bibliographies and references (eg Cite web)

I (for myself) am always puzzled by the confusion here in Wikidata, because I sense that sometimes we just not talk about the same thing.

Having said that, I agree that sources are overhelmingly important, and we need to discuss and propose solutions. What I can tell you, for example, is a "sensation": I felt that Denny and Lydia were a bit suspicios at the beginning, when I talked with them of "manifestations", because they probably felt we were suggestiong to replicate OpenLibrary in Wikidata, or to insert all manifestations of a book. That it is not so, and I replied to them we were talking about just the books in Commons and Wikisource (thus, only some-thousands books). I saw them relieved by this point of view, and they were much more easy to convince. I think we should do the same with Sources: have them to face a issue and propose a practical solution, integrated with Wikidata mission and structure.

My opinion is that the are just scared aff all the "projections" people are making in Wikidata, which often is viewed as a "panacea" and a "good-for-everything" project. Right now, they are thinking that "all the WD item are Wikipedia pages", and probably they want to stick with this structure for a while, seeing what happens. I agree with you that we need Sources, and possibly in a structured way. Don't ask me how, right now :-) Aubrey (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for wikidata and wikpedia are the same: at the end wikipedia will use sources from wikidata with each inclusion of data. so no difference. Then sources are not different from manifestations data because a coreect sourcing implies the whole bibliographic data in order to be able to verify exactly the data if needed. We can have some additional information for manifestations data but more or less manifestation data are equal to bibliographic data (publisher, date of publication, language, author,...).

The only limit we can put for references in wikidata is in my opinion the obligation of use of the reference in sourcing statement. So in order to avoid unecessary reference data we can have bots checking the use of reference and if no use a deletion procedure is launched. This means that all data from commons or wikisource can't be handled in wikidata and I agree with the WD team about that objective according to the initial plan. Snipre (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all. So, if I understand it correctly, is just how to have these data in WD. Will we create an item for each source/edition/manifestation used (as reference or in Commons/WS)? Aubrey (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked the development team about that but I think that if a source can be used more than once as reference for a claim we can create an item for a manifestation of a work. That will be the first step until the development team decides what to do with Wikisource and Common. Then I think we will find a consensus about how we can deal with data from commons and wikisource. That what I porpose to do. Snipre (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done some clean up, if you think more is needed, go ahead. I think we still have some issues to resolve, but it is more dependent on implementation choices. Like, how should we address different editions (or translations) of the same book. --Micru (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Different editions means different ISBN, different publication dates, for some books different editors,... so if we want to integrate that data in reusable way we have to create item for each manifestation of a work used as source in a certain number of statements. The only issue for me is to know what are the problems of creating a new domain S beside the domain Q for items and P for properties. Mixing Q item for a work and Q items for its manifestations is disturbing in my opinion and some people won't be able to do the difference and will add data of a manifestation to the work item if they don't find the appropriate item for a particular manifestation. So edition property will be defined in the item of the manifestation. Only the page property has to be defined in the source section beside the link to the manifestation item in order to allow the resusability of the source item. If these guidelines are applied in a mandatory way it will be easy to extract information from wikidata: all information about the source is defined in the source item describing one manifestation and the page property has to be recovered from the statement section for the source. Snipre (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The main problem of having 2 namespaces is that there will be a lot more of items, and that it would be more difficult to maintain, create, update, etc. I am ok having all information in one item if it is possible to address the subsection that represents the edition with a unique identifier. I agree with you that otherwise it makes sense to have the information separated in different items.--Micru (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So you give up about the reusability of sources ? We have no choice: we create an item for each source and we increase the total number of items and we can reuse the sources or we keep the number of item low and we forget about the reuse of sources. The question of a new domain S for sources doesn't change anything in case of the first option: if you create several items for different sources it doesn't modify the number of items if you call them QXXX or SXXX. So that is that choice we have to put in the request for comment. And at the end what is the problem ? The management of items or the size of the memory on the servers ? Because if a source is described by 6 properties and I want to use that source for 100 statements, dose it take more memory than one item with 6 properties with 100 links from the statements (I forget about the page property which is the same in both cases). Do you agree to present the choice like that ? Snipre (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't give up on source reusability. Even if the sources are integrated into the same item as subsections, they would still be reusable by using the notation "Qxxx->Edition ID->Parameters of that edition (editor, year, etc)" (just an example). The problem is that we cannot guarantee now the uniqueness of the "Edition ID". I left a comment on Denny's talk page about it. I think the developers should decide on which option they think it is better for scalability. I have no idea about how taxing can be each one of the options.--Micru (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the first time I hear that solution: is it feasible with the present structrue or we need to wait on new development ? Snipre (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that was always an option and probably it was mentioned during the office hour last Thursday again, but yes, it would require some development.--Micru (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sniper! I saw that you already commented below the properties "Crystal habit, Twinning, Fracture and Cleavage" Do you have time to review them? Some inorganic and organic chemicals can also form larger crystals that can be classified with those criteria (e.g. aspirin). Would be interesting to hear your opinion. (link) --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snipre, your last comment on edition number (P393) suggests me that I might have not explained myself with enough clarity. As far as I know, there are this items links represented by certain properties.

We cannot use edition number (P393) because it represents "edition number" (not the edition itself) and its datatype is "string". We need a property with datatype item. Which property do you suggest for the third case?--Micru (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I´m back online. You asked a question on my discussion page. The reason why I didn´t do anything about sources is that the tool is useful for adding the same data many times. I don´t see that someone would add a source for example ten times into different items. I think a tool for adding sources is needed, but this will be a different tool. Maybe asking for such a tool at the English project chat would be best. --Goldzahn (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but we solved the problem by using item to store data for sources. Snipre (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I think we're misunderstanding each other. The leagues on that table are all different leagues. I'm talking about subdivisions of leagues, not leagues that are at a lower level than other leagues. TCN7JM 00:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been checking the uses of subclass of (P279) and I cannot say that the meaning is the same as as the proposed edition of. "Subclass of" seems to link a reduced set with a much broader set, while in "edition of" there is not such a big step in the broadness of the items being linked. As for the bottom-up, I asked for a clarification, but the clarification needs to be clarified again :) --Micru (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that proposals are deleted, but that is not the case. Just because a property proposal doesn't have new comments doesn't mean it gets deleted. We just wait until some kind of consensus forms whether or not to create or not, we don't simply delete them. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not the lack of comment which is the origin of my delete proposal but the general trend of using strat and end as qualifer: we have to use an unique way to idicate this kind of information in order to simplify the data extraction in wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Hello, should I simply stop adding them, or use an alternative property? Given that I'm importing data from zh.wikipedia, and most of data were originally from another database source, but might have been edited by zhwp users. Liangent (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No there's no zhwiki article... it's there for WD:N#3. Details: we (or I?) made a database about that administrative division info on zhwiki with templates; articles and templates are extracting data from it with (complicated) template and parser function syntax and I'm simply moving that database to Wikidata. Liangent (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifically we don't really want to (bot-)create divisions in the lowest level unless one is very famous (eg. some tourist attraction), or ... there'll be too many articles without much info in them. Liangent (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Snipre! I saw that you changed some of the space groups from "instance of = space group" to "subclass of = space group". I don't know which is better. I took instance of becasue it says "this item is a concrete object (instance) of this class, category or object group". So for the space groups as a whole I thought that e.g. space group 1 is an instance. It will save us some work if we both rethink it once more because I already added that statement to about 100 items ;). --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as space group 1 is composed of different components, it can't be an instance of. If an item can group several other independent items, it can't be an instance of. You are right according to space group item but if you extend the classification in the other direction you see that space group X is a class of component so you can't have an item defined as a class and as an instance at the same time. This becomes a subclass. Snipre (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that an item that is an "instance of" can't at the same time be a "subclass of". Now I am wondering what kind of qualifiers we need to use to sort the symmetry groups, because now all of them will get 2 "subclass of" statements. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Be careful: you can have an instance of and a class for an intem for different classification. That's always a problem when you use a general classification based on instance of, subclass and class with specific properties.

Hey Snipre! Me again :) I saw that you changed the formatting on the DrugBank ID (P715). The DB is not part of the identifier and should therefore not be entered. There was a long discussion about this at Property_talk:P465. A lot of databases have these prefixes but I think we generally discourage saving them because they are just redundant data. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but as i saw no discussion in the talk page I assumed this was not discussed. About the format I prefer the format DBXXXX because you can use directly the string to create a link. Without the DB at the begining, you risk to see the numeric part reduced to its minimal significant digits: to be clear if you have DB0012 by putting the letters at the begining people will put the double 0. If you put only the number you risk to have 12 instead of 0012. This can be fixed later when you create the url but I don't like to see several possible formats for the same property. Yes, I know about the constraint check but if people can do the job right the first time they put the data this reduces the maintenance work. Snipre (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the source to Riograndense Republic (Q162192). As I have not read the source textbook myself but just copied the details from English Wikipedia I then added 'imported from English Wikipedia' which you then deleted. I think this should be kept until someone checks the original actually supports the statement. Filceolaire (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I archived proposals when there is something to archive. These proposals are not complete and there are no comment. And please don't say that contributors look at archive pages before creating a proposal, it is not the case. I put a comment at Wikidata:Ship task force so I think the main persons which are concerned are now informed. Snipre (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly right about the completeness of the proposals. And leaving a message is very polite of you. On second thought you were probably right about deleting them. all the best, and stay busy. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you archive manually content on pages other than user talk pages, please add the content to the corresponding archive. A short explanation of the closure of the discussion would be helpful too. -- Docuat 11:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you have been removing some of the OCLC properties that my bot has been adding (see diff). I was would like to know why you are doing this? I feel that is the right thing to do, as I got permission to do it at wd:RFBOT. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I removed the property: but you will understand why I did that if you look at the item. The item The King of Rome (Q594) is about a pigeon not a book. So if you want to add data about the book on the pigeon, please create the appropriate item. An item is not a category which mix different subjects with a common topic. Snipre (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have arrived here from the archived talk about the en:template:infobox element[1]. I am working on that one, long term. I understand the topic is on hold because we need a number data type here. All fine.

My question now is: how could one use wikidata in say enwiki? How can one get existing data (and source) out of wikidata onto a wiki content page? Any examples? en:User talk:DePiep -08:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What you need is to know lua programming language: an infobox is very complex and the use of the template invoke is not sufficient.

But you can try first: go in the article you want to have wikidata data and be sure that the corresponding data in available in the wikidata item linked to your article. Put the code line {{#property:Pxxx}} where Pxxx is the property used in the wikidata item to store the value you want, save and normally the value is displayed in the article text. Now you can take the infobox template you want to improve and in each field of the template you can add the corresponding property in the code line.

But this code can't held the existing data in the infobox and can't manage sources or data selection when multiple data values for the same property are present. And here lua plays a major role.

In WP:fr we already develop some lua modules to generate some infoboxes and I can only propose you to look at w:fr:Undéc-1-ène to see the potential of data extraction from wikidata: the first infobox is filled only with data from wikidata (look at the code source of the article: the first infobox is defined in the code only by {{Utilisateur:Snipre/bac à sable
| nom = Undéc-1-ène
}} (my test code).

Just a detail: for the full data extraction we need to wait for the number datatype but for the possibilité to extract data for an wikidata item which is different from the one linked to the wikipedia article. This is already known by the developers and this is on their priority list (see bugzilla:47930) but this is an huge development task. Hope I answered some of your questions and if you are ready to develop some feature in WP:en, I will be interested to follow your improvements. I have an account on WP:en : w:user:Snipre. Snipre (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a lot of the work around the ChemID Initiative, and I wanted to know if it is possible to arrange some sort of online chat/skype to learn more about how you are doing this - I also work on the Royal Society of Chemistry's ChemSpider database and would like to look into ways we could contribute to the project. If you send an email to the ChemSpider inbox (details in point two on the page [FAQs]). I hope to hear from you, --The chemistds (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@The chemistds: Hello, I was doing a lot of work but since 4 months I didn't do nothing because I had to finish my PhD thesis. So now I can take a little more time to progress in this project. From now I just have raw data and I have to treat them in order to organise them in table. I extracted data from en, de and fr:WP (name of article for each chemical having an infobox with the CAS number and the PubChem ID if they exist in the infobox and finally the Q number from wikidata). My idea is now to code a script to put this data in an unique table using the PubChem ID as key identifier. Then to analyse the table to find missing information (Q number or PubChem ID) or duplicate and to correct them. Second step is to extract data from free databases and to add their ID number to the table using again PubChem ID as matching key. After that, third step, I was thinking about importation of that table into Wikidata. But I have a problem about the licence. For PubChem ID, it is OK, but for other databases, the licence is not compatible, CC-BY instead of CC0, so now I prefer to avoid the importation. So when I will reach the second step I can include the Spider ID or I can compare my table witho their data if I can access to their database (a dump is enough) then I will need some help to treat inconsistencies.

If you want to help me I think the best would to allow wikidata to use the Spiderchem ID under the CC0 licence. I propose you to enter in contact with the wikidata development team and to propose them an agreement based on OTRS system used in common to allow the use of Spiderchem ID without any restriction. Snipre (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sbisolo: As I said in the comment there is a misunderstanding about the concept of article in the point 4 of that paragraph: Point 4 is true for all articles (in scientific journals or in newspaper as well as for magazine). But only scientific articles have a DOI and few magazines of newspapers have a volume. Point 4 specifies "at least" meaning we want to see that properties in all items defining articles (without any difference between scientific, newspaper or magazine articles).

So we can speak about the differences between an article and a publication but DOI and volume properties are specific properties and are not so necessary than the properties named in point 4 so they can be added in a second step.

The problem is points 7 and 8 which shouldn't be divided but merged into one point.Snipre (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry after reading carefully the text we don't have to merge point 7 and 8. You are right: we should put everything in point 8. Snipre (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snipre,
I'm from Open Food Facts and also a Wikidata contributor. I've just made a Bot Import proposal regarding the UNII property. Could you provide some feedback ? --Teolemon (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Teolemon: If I can help, yes. But what kind of feedback do you need ? Snipre (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kazkaskazkasako, Chris.urs-o: Sorry, I was trying another section which can be edited. The main reason in my opinion is the translation labelling inside the wikicode: depending on the way the sections are marked for the translation, you can't edit them directly. Snipre (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me on Help_Talk:Sources. I actually have a much more basic question : is there a community recommendation regarding the use of scholarly article (Q13442814) vs. article (Q191067) with instance of (P31) ? From what I've seen some people use the former (Daniel Mietchen, Infovarius, Vlsergey) and others the latter (AS, Achim Raschka). There's also some discussion at P31 suggesting that the lowest class (i.e. scientific article) should be prefered, although there's also some relevant discussion regarding the class items that exist to make the link with Wikipedia rather than for internal reasons. As you may have seen I am relatively new on WD so there are still things that look very weird to me, and in many cases I wasn't able to the related explanations/recommendations.

But items B and C are instance of (P31):item A (item B is a special case of mixture where item B is 100% and item C is 0%, the inverse for item C). So how can be 3 instances linked together ? Three instances of the same class (chemical compound (Q11173)) should be at the same level in the classification tree and can't have then a relation instance between them. I didn't read Help:Basic membership properties because this kind of documentation was done by one person and pretend to rule all classification schemes of WD. There is right now a RfC about this document to obtain a larger acceptance. Snipre (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, i added the the constraints, russian label and description for this property you requested. Please, check the property definition. And why are so strange units and template parameter noted at talk page? It must be FlashPt in Chembox and °C... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre: Carp. You're right. Embarrassing that I overlooked the hydrogens. Yeah, you wonder how that could happened (same here; where is my coffee). BTW, I fully agree that this problem is huge; have you discussed with the PubChem team how to handle this stereo problem in Wikidata? E.g. how to differentiate mixtures from unknown and from unspecified stereochemistry? (PS, I was scanning the recent changes because the number of CAS numbers has been fluctuating, but this is explained by people doing curation, so that is great!) Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

at the property proposal for 'defining formula' (here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#defining_formula) you opposed because you want user to use property TeX string instead. But the aim of our proposed property is another. There is a new data type 'Mathematical Expression' we developed in the last month. It launched last week and it allows user to add mathematical expressions exclusively - as TeX-Strings. But in contrast to the property 'TeX string' (which is just a plain string) the new data type comes with a validator to permit formula only. And it has also a formatter to show the formula rendered by the MathML extension. That's a more special story than just having mathematical expression as plain TeX strings without any functionality behind.

I posted a while ago about porting drug-protein interaction data from DrugBank to Wikidata and you raised some concerns about the validity of UniprotIDs from DrugBank. I am currently working to validate this information. Do you happen to have any examples of UniprotIDs on DrugBank that don't exist?

@Crowegian: I just gave my opinion about DrugBank: you don't need to take account of it to do data import. But my concern about DrugBank is that I found many mistakes in that databases for CAS numbers. I mentioned those errors to the database team and they corrected them fast. But I was disapointed to discover that over 100 chemicals I analyzed around 10 had wrong CAS numbers based on DrugBank. I don't know about UniprotIDs but I can only advise you to implement a constraint report and to check it after the importation. For me DrugBank is not the first source for chemical data and especially for chemical identifiers. I prefer to use ChemIDplus which has a lower error rate. Snipre (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Snipre: Got it. Thank you for your input. I will be sure to check whatever data I plan on importing against other sources, like ChemIDplus. Crowegian

@Mike Christie: Save your value and then edit again by setting 1 to 0 for the uncertainty. But you can try to fix it already at the first edition by typing +0 after your number. Check if possible. Snipre (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@kopiersperre: Because one can be used for the chemical without any defined stereoisomers and the other one for a complete defined stereoisomer. I prefer to avoid to merge now 2 items and to create later new items for each different stereoisomer. Snipre (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Snipre. The item does not correspond to the Wikipedia articles (de, en, fr at least) anymore after your changes. They describe both isomers, how they photoisomerize etc. Please fix it. My solution would be to undo your changes. --Leyo 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC) PS. You removed a correct German alias (Benzen is an alias of Benzol).

@Leyo: I don't take care of the interwikis: I use the data present in the item. Wikipedias deal with their articles as they want. WD is dealing with its own data and splitting so comparing WD items with WP articles is often just a nightmare because topic is often not the same. Then I analyze only the data available in the items, data importing by bot without any check before importation. I have enough work to curate the data in the different items. Perhaps a different choice in data splitting can be made in some cases but I don't have the time to find always the best solution: I have to curate thousand of items due to bad import of data and multiple creation of duplicates due to not sufficient analysis of existing data. Just have a look at one constraint report once, like Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P231 to understand the consequence of bad importations.

So to come back to (E)-azobenzene (Q410056) I just deleted all data related to mixture of isomers as the majority of current data in the items were about the trans isomer. There is an specific item for the mixture of isomers which is Azobenzene (Q27444428). So if you want you can transfer the interwikis dealing with the mixture to that item. Due to identifiers problems we have to split data about each isomer and create different items for the mixture (or the inverse). The only criteria are the original data in the items which are coming most of the time from WPs. This is the only way for WD to keep a coherent system. If WP articles want to treat mixture of isomers and specific isomers in one article I let them the choice to define which item should be linked to their article. Snipre (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You should have done it the other way round, i.e. creating a new item for the trans isomer leaving (E)-azobenzene (Q410056) to match the articles. Anyway, I moved the sitelinks to Azobenzene (Q27444428) and re-added the most important information that was lost. --Leyo 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo: No, because I used the data in the item to assess what is the concept behind the data. The problem is that most of the data were imported from the english article and especially from its infobox which is focused on the trans isomer. Then other contributors or bots linked this item with the wrong articles without checking what was the data in the item. So please consider the real order of the events and don't come to me complaining about my work when other contributors are responsible of the mess.

Again interwikis are not the reference to define the concept because WP articles are often mixing different concepts and because interwikis are often not correctly created. So only the data should be considered to define the concept and when the data are mixed I choose the concept represented by the majority of the data and then I deleted the rest.

To finish, interwikis is not the responsability of WD, each WP chooses the item corresponding to their article. Perhaps the choice of linking the article of the isomer mixture to the trans isomer item was a rational choice and your decision to move all interwikis is a complete lack of respect of this choice. I let you choose what is better or worst between deleting wrong data and changing interwikis, for me the choice is done. Snipre (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a last word about lost data. No data are not lost because most of the data were imported by bot and that bot will redo the importation later. The problem with that bot is its way to match WD items with external databases, mainly based on wrong data in WD and in the databases. So I won't loose time to import data when a bot can do that in faster way and I will focus on what is worthful: data curation. Why do I have to do bot work when more critical contribution is needed ? Snipre (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Is there any formal decision about deadline for property use ? Sorry but currently I am working mainly on data curation because bot importations are often bad so I prefer to identify clearly items before to start statements addition to the wrong items. We can't do everything at the same. Snipre (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no formal decision about a deadline and I don't have the plan to report these properties for deletion. I just wanted to inform you about the existence of these properties in case you should have never been informed about success of your proposals or in case you have forgotten it. --Pasleim (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snipre, I was adding EPA CompTox Dashboard identifiers and noted that it added an ID for sulfur (Q682). It picked it up based on the InChI and InChIKey for H2S... which is not the elemental sulphur. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At first I did not understand, but after a while I realized what is expressed by this statement is meant to be : « instances of this class are part of instances of that class». Something similar to «metasubclass of» but for parts. I wonder if this is necessary however as there is no ambiguity that they are on the same metaclass level. For exbmple I’d have no problem to use th esame property to express :

<My arm> <part of> <my body> (instances level)

<arm> <part of> <body> (class level) Obviously here it does not mean that the class of all arms is a part of the class of all bodies. It means that an instances of arm is a part of an instance of body.

I think we can do the same at the metaclass level. What do you think ? author TomT0m / talk page 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your bot has been listed at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive bot accounts as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure it's proposed to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can rerequest the bot flag at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot should you need it again. Of course, You may request retaining your bot flag here if you need the bot flag. Regards--GZWDer (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snipre, I check the output from the SPARQL query at Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry/Tools for compounds without InChI. I had Bioclipse process the (isomeric) SMILES and generate InChIs. This is what I found:

That is, if the 2098 compounds with an isomeric SMILES and no InChI, all of them don't have them for a reason. By far the most have an InChI which is too long to fit in Wikibase (1736). Another 348 have undefined stereochemistry (these could be added, but not sure). Two have an unparsable SMILES, while another 12 are for compound classes, and have a "*" in the SMILES, and InChI cannot be generated for those. The code can be found at https://gist.github.com/egonw/eb07cf69278c0be78d560c103ef29e5a --Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snipre. Your addition results in a format violation. What is your suggestion to get rid of this error? --Leyo 13:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leyo: The statement is correct and the constraint is not good enough to handle that case. It is a general problem in WD: does the absence of statement means that a property haven't a value or only that nobody was looking for a value ? And how can we declare that no value exists for one property ? I can delete the statement but I think we should start a discussion because I have similar cases for other constraint violation reports. Snipre (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. You may also just take the appropriate measure that the "error" will disappear from the constraint violation report. --Leyo 09:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snipre, in your recent edit you removed the SPLASH property proposal, but I cannot find where it is now listed? Can you point me to the new enlisting, please? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I've created first item for GHS pictogram: GHS01: exploding bomb (Q51080746). Now I'm ready for the rest of GHS pictograms and after a few days I think I'll be ready for H, EUH, AUH and P-phrases (in this case I thought of official name (P1448) for phrase and short name (P1813) for phrase code). But before this, I would like to know if you have any comments on this (especially, if you think it should be done in different way, using different properties etc.). Also, if everything is okay, I'll ask in Project Chat for as many descriptions in EU languages as it is possible (like in English: hazard pictogram in Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals), because adding those in QuickStatements is the easiest way. Best, Wostr(talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: No comment from my side, just ask if you need support. I am on holydays now, Will be back end of next week

@Maxlath: First point: never determine the subject of a WD item based on the sitelinks because WP articles 1) are mixing data and subject and 2) you can always find some particular sitelinks which have a different point of view than the others. So unless defining WP:en as the only reference, sitelinks should not be trusted.

If external users are using WP articles to determine the subject of a WD item, this is their problem and they should be aware of the consequences due to the above explanation. WD has its own classification and users have to refer to that classification only. Currently the distinction between work and edition is provided by the WikiProject Books and the mentioned item was not following classification so defining it as a work or as an edition was a 50/50 choice.

I completely support the need of clear rules but rules exist and are defined in WD.

Second point I only moved properties according to the information provided by Wikiproject Books: but (nominated for (P1411), ISFDB title ID (P1274) are NooSFere book ID (P5571)) are not in the list of the work properties or in the list of edition properties. So I prefer to avoid to do mistakes and I let the responsibility of the people who added those information to do their job correctly. I missed the Open Library ID (P648) so we can change it.

Finally about your proposition of keeping A Fire Upon the Deep (1st edition) (Q74335) as the work item, do the change, but just keep in mind what you said about stability: before my modifications, A Fire Upon the Deep (1st edition) (Q74335) was undetermined (you thought it was the work item but based on unreliable hypothesis), now the split is done and both items are clearly identified even if some data should still be moved. By changing this situation, you just break the stability you wanted.

I tried to split the data according to rational facts: work items have often less data than edition so creating a new work item will require minimum of data moves, the original item was no clear majority to become the work item, again because sitelinks are unreliable to decide what is the subject of an item and only the data present in the item have to be considered. Snipre (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maxlath: Two or three years ago, editions were not distinguished from work and were classified as book too. How can I suppose that the current classification is referring to the work before the recent change to written work or to the edition before the classification change for edition ? Again I can spend hours to understand what old contributors did or I can use the data of the item to identify the subject. So when I see that all usual data of one edition item (publisher, publication date, ISBN,...), what is the criteria to define that the item is for work ? And usually people complain about the fact of creating a work item as a condition before creating an edition item. So often the initial goal of item creation is edition and work item is missing.

We still can discuss about that topic during hours, my advice is the following: next time you see an edit like mine, changing book to edition, if you consider that the edit is wrong, please curate yourself the item to distinguish edition from work and don't revert to the old ambiguous situation. I can do the wrong choice, but if a choice has to done, do it and don't let the case in an undetermined state. Regards Snipre (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

thanks a lot for your explanation concerning work <-> edition. As I understand it, I always have to create two wikidata-items for a book. So I started with work: Q21962241, and edition: Q69576569 for De ademhaling der planten by Hugo de Vries. May I ask you, if you could find some time to carefully check the two items. Did I put everything in the right place? Didn't I forget important things ? etc. So that I know what to do for other books on Dutch Wikisource, that I want to add to Wikidata. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mabschaaf: Please check the formula of the compound and don't take care of the name/label of the entry in PubChem. The name of an entry in PubChem is a parameter which can be modified by registered users, so there is no guarantee that the displayed name is correct. PubChem manages the structural identifiers (formula, InChI, SMILES,...) so those are relevant to identify a compound. And if you take the time of analyzing the compound, you can see that there is no missing hydrogen or other atom. So this compound is not a radical.

I can only recommend you to use structural identifiers like InChI or InChIKey to compare different databases: don't trust name, formula or even commercial identifiers like CAS.

Finally, even if the chemical in WD is not dimethyl hydrogen phosphite, don't modify identifiers with similar InChIkey but create a new item. The rule in WD about chemicals to link different entries from different databases is to use the InChIKey. This is the truth or at least the best truth element we can have currently. Snipre (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)